CORDERO v.

FS Management & Development Corp

In a contract to sell, non-payment of the purchase price does not mean breach of contract. It is a
positive suspensive condition which prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title of the property
to the buyer. Hence, in this case, petitioners cannot demand for rescission as there is no contract to
rescind at all. No damages can be awarded; however, the vendor is entitled to retain the payments
made by the buyer according to Maceda Law.
SPS. PANGILINAN v. COURT OF APPEALS
Petition to reverse the decision of CA is denied. SC ruled that herein petitioners are guilty of
laches . Due to their failure to pay the stipulated price within the original period, rescission under
Art.1191 is inevitable. Hence, they cannot demand for specific performance of obligation.
IRINGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS
In a contract of sale, non-payment of the purchases price is a breach of contract, thus, rescission
is applicable. Petitioners motion to reverse the decision of CA to formally rescind the contract and
award moral damages to seller is denied. Award of moral and exemplary damages is proper.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILS v. COURT OF APPEALS
Decision of CA is modified. 78.75 hectares of mortgaged property is released and Tolentino is
only ordered to pay for the loan of P17,000 plus interest of P41,210 for the period of 3 years plus 12%
per annum until the whole amount is paid.
SONGCUAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
Petition to modify Intermediate Appellate Courts decision is dismissed for having become moot
and academic. Rescission is not applicable in this case because the obligation is not reciprocal. There are
2 separate and distinct obligations in the case at bar, thus Art.1191 is not to be used.
SPS. BARREDO v. SPS. LEANO
Petitioners cannot demand for rescission of contract. Assumption of mortgage is but incidental
to the property bought, and thus not an essential condition to which non-compliance would result to
rescission.
ANGELES v. CALASANZ
Contract to sell is a contract of adhesion and must be construed against the party causing it.
Since the principal obligation has been paid and only few remaining installments are left unsettled, the
contract cannot be cancelled. Court ruled that the plaintiff-appellees should pay the balance without
interest and the defendant-appellants must execute the final deed of sale.
ROQUE v. LAPUZ
Respondent failed to pay 116 out of the 120 monthly installments, which caused the petitioner
to bring the action of rescission to the Court. Court held that the respondent cannot be given the benefit
of grace period for which to settle the balance of the obligation. He is then ordered to pay a P60 per
month from August 1955 as a form of rent until he vacates the place plus attorneys fees.
PALAY INC. v. CLAVE
Court held that Palay Inc should refund to respondent the amount paid plus interest since the
object is in the hands of 3rd person in good faith. Return of the thing is not anymore possible, hence the
price and interest should be given back to the buyer.

AYSON-SIMON v. ADAMOS
Petitioner demanded for rescission of the contract after he has chosen specific performance
when defendants failed to deliver the land. Defendant contended that petitioner cannot demand for
rescission after he has chosen specific performance. The Court ruled that rescission is still available for
petitioner under Art.1191.
ANG v. COURT OF APPEALS & LEE CHUY REALTY CORP.
In reciprocal obligations, power to rescind is implied. However, it is not permitted for slight or
causal breaches of contract. Sellers refusal to sell because of disagreement in increase in price, is a
serious breach of contract and thus gives the buyer the right to rescind the agreement.